We really need to stop using the term ally. This applies to all of us in anti-oppression work, whether in the work in question we are part of the oppressed or oppressor class*. This is not about people who self-identify as allies and don't work on their privilege and refuse to listen to members of the oppressed group, but to all people who might self-identify as an ally to an oppressed group. Ally is an inherently problematic. It:
1.) Presupposes you are doing a good job, and by its very use, is a coercive request to members of the oppressed group to give approval to the person in question, and more so, it is linked to an expectation of gratitude for attempting to do two things:
a) Acknowledge and work on** one's privilege as a member of an oppressor class.
b) Helping to make voices of the oppressed class heard, and actively standing up in solidarity with the oppressed class.
(a) is just part of being a decent human being. If you are not acknowledging your various privileges and trying to understand what it is to be a member of an oppressor class, you going from benefiting from an oppressive system (which, as a member of the oppressor class, you can't help but do) to contributing your energies to maintaining and strengthening that oppressive system. (b) is working in solidarity, and working in solidarity is a necessary part of a strong, broad-reaching anti-oppression movement.
2.) Distracts attention from members of the oppressed class and focuses on the self-identified ally. Anti-racist, anti-cissexist, anti-sexist, anti-ablist, anti-classist work needs to focus on the voices and experiences of the oppressed class, not the members of the oppressor class who are attempting to be decent human beings and/or working in solidarity.
3.) By self-identifying as an ally, you are building an identity on others' oppression. This is profoundly appropriative, because it is making oppression you do not experience part of your own identity. It also furthers the Othering of oppressed classes, as it once again has people defining themselves in terms of not being the Other, and reinforcing the view of the Other at the margins.
So, if you're acknowledging your privilege, seeing how you systematically benefit from it, and centering the concerns of those who do not share said privilege, you're trying to be a decent human being. Congratulations. Have a cookie. And if you're actively engaging in anti-oppression work in areas in which you're not oppressed, you're doing solidarity work. Just say you're working in solidarity with members of the oppressed class. This centers the work being done, and the members of the oppressed class, and not you. Because when you're a member of the oppressor class in dealing with a particular oppression, It. Is. Not. About. You.
*Yes, I recognize we are all variously members of the oppressor class and members of the oppressed class when it comes to various oppressions. Kyriarchy is ever shifting, and we all have some privilege, somewhere.
**By "work on" I mean being attentive to how one systematically benefits from it, and trying to center the concerns of those who do not share the privilege.
09 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
"Kyriarchy is ever shifting, and we all have some privilege, somewhere."
Hmm, isn't that just a fancy word to save elusive concepts like "oppression" and "privilege" from being completely deconstructed by thinking intersectionalism to its logical end (individualism, again)? I mean, fine, if that's what it takes to hook into feminist "patriarchy" lingo... but still.
I really like this analysis, Gauge. I think I'll be bringing this one up in my local activist circles.
(By the by, I think you have a pretty bad typo in 1-b, switching 'oppressed' for 'oppressor.'
little light: thanks!
Also, 1-b should read "b) Helping to make the voices of the oppressed class heard, and actively standing up with the oppressed class" which is kind of an awkward phrasing, but "standing up for" kind of implies that the oppressed class can't stand up for themselves/needs the member of the oppressor class to do it for them. I'll actually edit it to "actively standing in solidarity with the oppressed class", which is less awkward.
hh: If you haven't seen it yet, this post http://myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html explains the concept of kyriarchy well.
I think there's less a danger of the terms "oppression" and "privilege" being deconstructed away than losing sight that we're all together in solidarity against a really big oppressive framework with very few at the top. Clearly, even just talking about intersectionality, a lot of people are clearly oppressed, and the concept of intersectionality helps to defuse "Oppression Olympics" type discussions. I think kyriarchy takes that a step further by saying that in different situations, different oppressions and privileges shift your position on the pyramid. Obviously, individualism is not what we need - that inevitably leads to victim blaming and not recognizing oppression at all in my mind.
Excellent post!
I find the term ally problematic myself, particularly recently. Sometimes it can be used to exclude people who are a legitimate part of an oppressed group, but for various reasons aren't percieved to be suffering from oppression by others in that minority...
'You can't be a feminist, you can only be an ALLY. You can't be a transfeminist, you can only be an ALLY.'
Over all though, I think you are exactly right, that just acknowledging the work that is being done is much more important than giving out cookies to people who are just acting like decent human beings instead of douche bags.
This is a great post. I hadn't thought about this before.
Hmmm. This is one i'm going to have to think about.
Do you think that all and any uses of the terms "ally" or "alliance" are counterproductive?
For example, when i say stuff like "I believe the disability rights movement needs to be an ally of the trans* movement" (or vice versa), i'm not expecting gratitude for anything (in fact, i've never wanted anyone's gratitude for anything, and am somewhat violently allergic to the whole concept - tell me you're grateful to me for something, and i'll tell you to fuck off) - i'm calling for alliance...
I suppose it might be something to do with the fact that i don't generally think in terms of "I am an ally of Group X", so much as "I am a member of Group X, and Group X should be an ally of Group Y". And i don't think of any unequal relationship between Group X and Group Y there, because i think of "is an ally of" as a reciprocal relation (so if X is an ally of Y, Y is equally an ally of X).
But maybe that isn't the usual usage of the term...
Also, i think using phrases like (e.g.) "disabled people and allies" can be useful for advertising a non-identity-exclusive campaign or event, from a purely pragmatic, nice-short-phrase point of view. I'm not saying that's unproblematic, tho...
Shiva, that's coalition building, which should absolutely be happening. In that context, I think you're using alliance in the more classical sense of working together and not the anti-oppression sense of (hypothetically) using your privilege to assist other people.
I really think any writing about allies should challenge people who think of themselves as allies - force them to ask themselves whether they're really doing it because they want to improve things or do they want cookies? Do they want to use it as a shield so they won't be called to check their privilege?
And I love that Gauge wrote this, because it needed to be written.
I never heard the word "ally" until getting online. When did the word come into popular lefty usage?
I have never liked the word or used it much (unless someone else does) and that might be due to my association with WWII, which my family was obsessed with. ALLIES meant, you know, USA, France, UK, etc. I still reflexively think that at first. ("Allies?" Oh yeah, they mean "back ups"...) A person born in a "non-ally" country (Germany or Japan) might find it unnecessarily off-putting, and I think it's good to be as universal as we can be. I'd rather choose a word with no war-associations at all, so I'm so glad you said this.
All of your points are well-taken.
I agree, I've never much cottoned to the term and don't use it for myself, rarely use it in general terms when I can't think of an alternative.
i think I wrote a post about this once, somewhere...
Presupposes you are doing a good job, and by its very use, is a coercive request to members of the oppressed group to give approval to the person in question, and more so, it is linked to an expectation of gratitude for attempting to do two things
I could not agree more with this statement. Allies some to feel that they are entitled to a pat on the back for owning privilege, when owning privilege is the human thing to do. When I tried to address this very same issue I was told that I was expecting super human qualities from supposed allies. I firmly disagree because acting in the cause of justice should not be all about the oppressor class.
I just found your blog today and found this post amazing and thought provoking. Thank you.
Thank you, for voicing the problems and offering a solution ("say this instead").
I agree with most of your points, and I have found myself both feeling like the holy ally and trying to bribe people into being decent human beings with the holy ally feeling.
Sure. I agree. But I think you're looking at those who are "allies" in a very limited way. Most of the people I would say are allies already fulfill all the requirements you outline.
I think doing away with the term itself would be useful too. It does set up an "us" / "them" / "us" / "other" dichtomoy, once again, which, is completely retroactive of the point of working collectively for positive social change. The point is deconstruct the ideas and assumptions which separate the oppressed from the oppressor, even on an everyday level, and to break down the barries and assumptions which allow people to continue to discrimate against and oppress others.
So, to that end, the term ally should be striken. And the attention to allies is something that needs to be considered as well. Ie - good ally workshops, good ally comms . . . they divert attention from other things at times. It ought to be as simple, in some ways as saying: you support this? Show up.
Which, yaknow, doesn't eliminate those "self professed" allies which we all know about - who sit and speak for others and repeat bad behavior - but, I think confronting these people and saying: "Look. You're here to support. If you're not, go away" might be enough.
There's that fine line between trying to welcome people who do honestly wish to support social change, but sometimes fuck up (as we all do) and making it clear certain things are not tolerated, the end. I think it might be good for many more individual organizations to establish ground rules and boundaries in such a way, depending on their goals and outreach. It would reduce issues with conflict, allow people to show up to help, and generally, less time might be wasted on deciding who is, or is not, an ally.
All of this is news to me. I've always interpreted "Ally" as meaning, "To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage." (Definition from answers.com)
Basically, if someone is an ally, I would have just figured they were proclaiming friendship...
For me, the most offensive part of someone being called an "ally" is that it presupposes they are not a member of the group they are allied with.
In other words, saying you are a "queer ally" is another way of saying "but i'm not one of them."
I have started a podcast about feminism, and the aspects of the movement that need inspection/commentary/growth and would really like to cite your blog entry/possibly interview you about your inspection of the term ally and the reasons behind using it.
If this sounds like something you are interested in, could you email me:
fullyengagedfeminism@gmail.com
At the risk of raising a differing opinion, I personally have no problem with the term "ally".
If someone is working for the causes of equality and ending oppression, they are free to self-identify however they choose. Freedom includes freedom to self-identify.
It is the work that matters, not the label one applies to oneself.
A-FUCKING-MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
I disagree with most of the premises you base this argument on, although I do think "ally" is an imperfect term in some ways.
1. I don't think "ally" presupposes doing a good job at all. It could mean any number of things and shouldn't be taken at face value. Someone who calls him or herself an Ally is not necessarily working in the interests of every member of the group they consider themselves part of an alliance with. It does mean an identification of being in solidarity with the group in question, in their interpretation (and even solidarity is an imperfect word), without being a member of that group and while working together to try to achieve something. I think it's appropriate for people who are by definition not a member of a group, and if a group is not defined by a inclusive philosophy, but by membership. (So, being a "feminist ally" would be silly - just be a feminist. Being a "queer ally" is absolutely fine.) I also disagree that we can expect people to combat privilege because it's the human thing to do. I think there are decent human beings who benefit from privilege in one form or another unconsciously and without much self-awareness, and there are un-decent human beings who are aware of these issues. "Decency" is far more complex than one's awareness of class, race, ability, etc.
I think a person working in solidarity with oppressed people to diminish advantages that he or she benefits from should be met with appreciation, although I balk at the word "gratitude", because in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to be grateful that some people choose to work against oppressing us instead of just unconsciously continuing with their life. But, we don't live an ideal world, so the individuals who do choose to devote their energy to solidarity should be appreciated for their work as activists.
2. I disagree that an ally inherently distracts attention from those who should be the focus. There are certainly people who try to attract attention for their work as activists in solidarity with groups that they do not belong to regardless of whether they call themselves an Ally. Not all people who self-identify as Allies make it about them; for many it is a convenient way to indicate the depth of their support and their non-membership in the group they're working with. It can be beneficial to have a variety of people identified as being part of or working with a political or social struggle, and they should have some way of describe themselves. Of course, the voice and the direction of any equality movement has to come from those who are seeking equality. But including others who are interested in equality - individuals as allies, or organizations of allies - should be a priority of any movement that seeks to actually achieve results.
3. I completely disagree that self-identifying as an ally is a construction of an identity based on the oppression of others and that it furthers marginalization. I think nothing could be further from the truth for people who identify themselves as allies. I DO think most people who ally themselves with a group they are not a part of are acting in their own self-interest. They want to be part of a society, or a world, that is more egalitarian. Their construction of an identity as an ally is not linked to continued oppression but to a desire for a progressive and equal society, and self-identification as a progressive, egalitarian person. It's this self-identification that draws them to become allies and it is why they are valuable - as ambassadors for the goals that they share with members of less-advantaged groups of people. Does this make it slightly about them, or their children? (Many people I've talked to express a desire for a better future for their children.) Absolutely. All people are self-interested to some extent. But this isn't a bad thing when they're working on your side.
The idea that you can have an anti-oppression movement that is pure, that somehow can achieve goals without allies, is fallacious. I think it's OK to have allies in a broader-based movement and to let some things be about them and be about their interest in a more equal society. Letting some things be about them can get results. For example, I don't mind that some straight people think highly of themselves for being a Friend to the Gays or self-identified allies when I need the support of a majority of the 90% of straight people out there to obtain equal legal rights, and I am happy that organizations accept their money and time and advocacy. I am not going to wall myself off as a member of an Oppressed Class and refuse allies and their support because of an idea that equality can happen uniquely by me pulling myself up by my bootstraps and standing by myself in perfect empowerment. Guaranteeing profound legal changes, electing progressive officials, diminishing the violence I hear about every single day, none of it can happen without broad social change across all demographics and without a broad-based coalition of people who are willing to work in solidarity, and if they want to call themselves Allies, I'm absolutely cool with that. Alliances are necessary.
Thought-provoking post. I have always seen (and used) the word "ally" to mean in solidarity with (at least that is what comes to mind when I think of the word) but you raise some really good points that I would like to think about.
I do think the points you raise go beyond terminology, however. No matter what word one uses there are always going to be the people who want the cookies/attention/gratitude and make it all about themselves.
Post a Comment